The Splintering GOP Base

Darla said:
Damo you didn't get mad at what I said did you?
Click to expand...
Nope. I couldn't care less. Invariably after a bit of explanation you catch on to what I am talking about, and even admit the application. If only to yourself sometimes.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, do you even know what a parliamentary system is?
Click to expand...

Do you ever read before you jump? Look before you leap?

Do you know what the word "like" means when used in a comparative sentence? Does it mean "the exact same thing as" or "something similar to"? Please edify us.
 
***sigh***

Damocles said:
Link it. I did.

Also, where here did you see that he was against Gay Adoption?



Anyway, anywhere else? What do you see in his press releases? What does he focus on?

His focus does not lie here.

I said, and I quote, "Tom does not run on anti-gay." And I stand by that as I listen to his speak, rarely if ever would he mention this topic.

And if this is your only evidence then it is weak evidence. You, he and I all know there is going to be no Constitutional Amendment. He doesn't run on this issue, his is border security. You know it as well as I do.

And lastly, when did I ever say I supported his Presidency run?

He knows I am likely to vote Libertarian. However, there is no likely libertarian to run in this district.
Click to expand...




Damn damo...did you not ever listen to the song...'Stand by your Man'...Tammy Wynette...you are starting to worry me damo...Tom is your bud...at least take a strong stand...:pke:
 
"Rated voting was actually popular whenever someone brought it up. It's not meant to bring about proportional representation."

Rated voting sucks behind. I would not support such a system in the US, ever.
 
Battleborne said:
[/B]



Damn damo...did you not ever listen to the song...'Stand by your Man'...Tammy Wynette...you are starting to worry me damo...Tom is your bud...at least take a strong stand...:pke:
Click to expand...
Strong stand = "I will not again vote for another candidate that isn't talking about the fact that undeclared wars have always been suckholes and should never be pursued again"

Not strong stand = "Well, Tom is my friend so I'll make an exception for him."
 
wtf................!

Damocles said:
Strong stand = "I will not again vote for another candidate that isn't talking about the fact that undeclared wars have always been suckholes and should never be pursued again"

Not strong stand = "Well, Tom is my friend so I'll make an exception for him."
Click to expand...


Declared/undeclared
what difference does it make as long as the right people/country is in the cross hairs?..Hunter/Tancredo are on the right path!
 
Battleborne said:
Declared/undeclared
what difference does it make as long as the right people/country is in the cross hairs?..Hunter/Tancredo are on the right path!
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference.

1. A declaration limits those voting to exactly what they mean. There is no hemming and hawing about whether they voted for it, or only a "tool for diplomacy" nobody gets to pretend that they don't support the action. Or that they were "fooled" into it. It is clear.

2. It requires a 2/3 majority to Declare war, the war powers act has no such requirement.

3. The Declaration makes it clear that it is the super majority of the States who agree that it is the right action to fight a war and protects the US against any foolish action. It also sets off laws that otherwise remain quiescent.

4. It was what they swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office. Not only when it is convenient, but always. To uphold and protect that Constitution. If you want it changed so that the War Powers Act is the requirement, then please proffer an Amendment. Otherwise, do not do it.

You, of all people, have served in one of the War Power Act debacles and should understand what happens.
 
However...........

Damocles said:
There is a huge difference.

1. A declaration limits those voting to exactly what they mean. There is no hemming and hawing about whether they voted for it, or only a "tool for diplomacy" nobody gets to pretend that they don't support the action.

2. It requires a 2/3 majority to Declare war, the war powers act has no such requirement.

3. The Declaration makes it clear that it is the super majority of the States who agree that it is the right action to fight a war and protects the US against any foolish action. It also sets off laws that otherwise remain quiescent.

4. It was what they swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office. Not only when it is convenient, but always. To uphold and protect that Constitution. If you want it changed so that the War Powers Act is the requirement, then please proffer an Amendment. Otherwise, do not do it.
Click to expand...



The WPA gives all concerned the legal right to use military force in lieu of a formal declared war...thus one or both is the same! One is formal...the other informal...***shrug***
 
Damocles said:
"You mean five member districts? It works in Ireland. The parties get almost the exact same amount of votes as they get seats. The only ones that don't are those that have like 5% of the vote, which is not the parties we necessarily want to represent anyway."

No, I mean when you are voting for more than one person for one office you invariably wind up with somebody you really didn't want in there. Your type of proportional voting systems reeked and left you with a bad taste in your mouth.

Proportional representation like a parliamentary system is a different animal altogether.
Click to expand...

In party-list (a "parliamentary system" is something like a presidential system, and doesn't necessarily involve party lists) you don't get to vote for who you want.

Party-lists always wind up with a bunch of people who don't know the candidates and could care less about them.
 
Damocles said:
"Rated voting was actually popular whenever someone brought it up. It's not meant to bring about proportional representation."

Rated voting sucks behind. I would not support such a system in the US, ever.
Click to expand...

That's because your a conservative. You can't stand the fact that rated voting gives you the freedom to express your vote however you want. You want something mechanical, something that boxes you in.
 
You, of all people, should know what it is like as the will of the nation fails those in the battlefield.

There are many differences. Formal declarations allow no wiggle room.
 
Watermark said:
That's because your a conservative. You can't stand the fact that rated voting gives you the freedom to express your vote however you want. You want something mechanical, something that boxes you in.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. I don't want the sucky third choice to win.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. I don't want the sucky third choice to win.
Click to expand...

Damo, there's no system that's ever been invented in which it's always the best option to vote for your first choice first. The closest any system has ever come are those that make it so that it's always best to at least rate your first choice equally - approval and range voting.

What you seem to want, Damo, is unambigiouity, which is impossible to come by. The best you can do is mask it with complicated smoke and mirrors or just accept the fact that no voting system can be perfect.

Your argument is non-sequitor anyway. It's reductio ad absurdum.

People will always say stuff like "THE NTIHGTHENTH CHIOCE WILL ALWAYS WIN OMGZ", but there's a beauty in the approval. It almost always gives out the best results. Its performs better than in other system IN REALITY, which is what I care about.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, there's no system that's ever been invented in which it's always the best option to vote for your first choice first. The closest any system has ever come are those that make it so that it's always best to at least rate your first choice equally - approval and range voting.

What you seem to want, Damo, is unambigiouity, which is impossible to come by. The best you can do is mask it with complicated smoke and mirrors or just accept the fact that no voting system can be perfect.

Your argument is non-sequitor anyway. It's reductio ad absurdum.

People will always say stuff like "THE NTIHGTHENTH CHIOCE WILL ALWAYS WIN OMGZ", but there's a beauty in the approval. It almost always gives out the best results. Its performs better than in other system IN REALITY, which is what I care about.
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdam is a valid form of argument, it is not always, nor even most of the time, a logical fallacy.

A system where people select their candidate through voting, then those candidates run against each other is preferable to an open field with confusing, for most people, results.
 
Range voted was elected unanimously over at fullpolitics.com.

You're the only person who sees things the way you do.

Whatever. You're blind to reason. Reducto ad absurdum is always a logical fallacy.
 
Exactly.............!

Damocles said:
You, of all people, should know what it is like as the will of the nation fails those in the battlefield.
There are many differences. Formal declarations allow no wiggle room.
Click to expand...



I just wanted you to say it...we were failed in Nam and are being failed in the ME...thank Darla et al!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top